A lot of people suggest mandatory minimums to fix that by the way, personally I don't think it is fair to tie people's hands like that. We need some leeway to look at mitigating factors to determine the proper punishment.

What happened to this girl is horrible, and I am not aware of all the mitigating circumstance, but it seems the kid did this when he was black out drunk, had no criminal history, and seemed to be on the right track as far as having a good future. You definitely shouldn't punish him as much as a repeat offender who has other crimes in their background and did the crime while sober.

Well... this story sounds like more over-sensationalized college campus crap with a lot of innuendos and big accusations but no substance... I think she was going to the frat party for some reason pertaining to sex and alcohol consumption. To quote one of the commentators "this is not the story of another drunk college hook up"... so you know right there that's exactly what this is. I'm gonna go get myself a nice big rib-eye steak.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

Does the punishment fit the crime? The judge thought so.

Here's what's going to happen to that kid when he's in prison. He's a young, sort of boyish looking almost effeminate white adolescent. He's going to be sexually assaulted in prison, and probably a lot. The judge knew that. We all know it, because rape (real rape, not just sexual assault) is an every day occurrence--especially for people like that--in the penal system.

Does this mean he got preferential treatment? I'm not sure what preferential treatment means. People get six months or less for sexual assault all the time. It's a common occurrence. Some people get even less. They get probation and suspended sentences, because they and their lawyers strike plea deals. This is the norm. The norm is not to lock up 20 year olds who do selfish and disgusting things until they are middle aged.

The reality is that a guy like this kid (and he is a kid, because a 20 year old is still a kid) would not only possibly, but likely wind up killing himself after 1.5-2 years in prison, due to what his experience in prison would be like. That's probably what motivated the judge to keep the sentence low.

The other reason is that, at the end of the day, there is no more "justice" to locking him up for fifteen years than there is to locking him up for six months. That amount of time is going to feel like an eternity for him. It's still a severe punishment, with severe implications. There is also no world in which the victim (who was passed out, because she was drunk, and who put herself in that situation) is better off in any sense if he is locked up for a longer period of time.

But why this matters has less to do with the individual case, than the politics of rape culture. There is the lie that college campuses are rife with rape and sexual assault because the cases of it get so much publicity, often on the national level. So, idiots think that there's this epidemic of "rape" that more or less makes college co eds as likely to be victimized by sexual assault as women in the Congo where rape as used as a weapon of war. This is stupidity in its purest form. Sexual assault rates have been going down on college campuses since the 1970s.

To preempt what I anticipate will be very stupid and emotional reactions from people who are going to lose their sense of perspective here (and I know there will be... I'll bet someone even links me to that stupid "tea" video), none of this makes what the kid did any less disgusting. Of course it was disgusting, and their is no excuse. But the harm has already happened. It is over. The girl put herself in a position to be taken advantage of, and the selfish little sh!t swimmer did exactly that. It's a bad situation, but it is not made better by irreparably destroying his life due to something stupid he did while in college.

But YYW, aren't you being a sexual assault apologist?

No. I'm not. I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm being practical. When it comes to the law, we have to make fair and even handed decisions not based on our emotional reaction to stuff we don't like viewed through the lens of outrage politics and rape culture myths. We have to think about what justice in the circumstance is.

There are two considerations: deterrence and retribution. How much prison is it going to take to keep him from doing this again? How bad was what he did, and once we make that determination, how long does he deserve to be in jail because of it? Then, what is the lasting impact on him of that sentence? Is he going to be more likely or less likely to be a dangerous member of society when he gets out, at various lengths of penal sentences?

These are tough questions, but they are not questions that need to be answered through the lens of "rape culture" outrage politics, which is really all I'm seeing. It's stupid, and the people who are going at it are stupid. Six month prison sentences for things like this happen all the time. Less than that happens all the time. The only reason people are making a big show of this is because he's a white stanford student, because it feeds into the white privilege/rape culture duality narrative that people get so caught up on, and it's stupid. So incredibly stupid.

What the kid did was stupid and wrong. What society is now doing is stupid and wrong. Stupidity compounded does not make our world a better place. People should be less stupid.

"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr

Most leftists will say that they think the penal system is too retributive. Well, here's the lie detector test on that.

What? People want 14 years - in a state prison? And that's going to help the victim? That's going to make things any different? Talk about retributive. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, and he'll get raped multiple times. So does the punishment fit the crime? Yeah, I'm sure the several times it will happen is "equal" in nature. Talk about a lesson on rape...

But what's the point of a lesson if you don't ever get to use it?

This kid's life is ruined. Get that - he didn't need 14 years for that to happen. He got kicked out of Stanford, has a criminal record, and is a sex offender. He won't get a decent job. I saw this when reading something on Slate:

Of course, when it comes to criminal punishment for sexual assault, imposing a severe impact should be the point. A short stint in jail will be a blip in the lifetime of a 20-year-old man. The more severe impact will come later, when Turner leaves jail and becomes a lifetime member of the sex offender registry.

Punishments for sex offenses are levied for three interconnected purposes: protecting a community from harm; sending a message to potential criminals about the consequences that await them; and rehabilitating offenders.

The false ideas comes when these people think jail will be easy time for any sex offender, and the hypocrisy comes where we expect a criminal justice system to rehabilitate people and only succeed in institutionalizing them.

In fact, he's less likely to rape another person with this sentence than 14 years. Any analysis of statistics and studies on recidivism done by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty will show that. So think about that before demanding a maximum sentence in a state prison.

And after that, we have the sex offender registry. In the name of protecting children from pedophiles, despite him raping a legal adult, he is barred from living close to any school. He can't get good work, and everyone will know where he lives.

The victim said she "doesn't want to see him rot away". Frankly, a harsher sentence would be just that. A criminal record and sex offender registry isn't a "time out". Nobody with such convictions leads normal lives after release. Reintegration into society is hard enough with far less violent convictions. More time doesn't help anyone, and it only has the potential to bring more issues.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

I don't even get the sex offender registry. It was a good ideal so you know who the hell to keep your kids away from. I wonder if it was judges who intentionally ruinedbthe system by putting streakers on it in order to make the world a safer place for pedophiles.

I saw a news story where an 18 year old highschool football player was dating one of the 15 year old chearleaders, and the parents pressed sexual assault charges on him for dating their daughter while being black. He is serving a 20 year sentence now.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

This is all true if you want to trivialize or change the definition of rape.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

This is all true if you want to trivialize or change the definition of rape.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm don't see how there's anything gained from distinguishing between nonconsensual penetration with fingers versus a penis versus an object.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

This is all true if you want to trivialize or change the definition of rape.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm don't see how there's anything gained from distinguishing between nonconsensual penetration with fingers versus a penis versus an object.

Well, lets look at what you stated: " he treated her like a disposable sex toy", even when absolutely no sex took place, and consent (you know, THE defining aspect of whether or not something is rape or not) is arguably unknown in the situation.

If you eliminate consent and SEX as part of the charge, you are now starting to open up a wide range of crimes that could range from the innocuous to the bizarre.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

While I agree with the general sentiment that there's no benefit to giving the kid 14 years in prison, I also think 6 months (3 with good behavior) might be too little. There is absolutely no indication that the kid's feelings about what he did have changed. He won't apologize to the victim. To me, it looks like he's just sad he got in trouble and doesn't really understand which of his actions were actually criminal. The dad's statement to the court makes it seem like that's the attitude in their house, even.

I don't believe that this is the last time that kid will rape a woman. No, he isn't going to intentionally drug and rape someone. But if he finds himself in a similar situation in the future, on the verge of sex with a woman who is too intoxicated to consent, I think it's more likely than not that he's just going to keep going with it. A longer prison sentence probably wouldn't change that. Short of doing the exact same thing to him, I don't think there's anything that a justice system or individual could do that would change that.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

This is all true if you want to trivialize or change the definition of rape.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm don't see how there's anything gained from distinguishing between nonconsensual penetration with fingers versus a penis versus an object.

Well, lets look at what you stated: " he treated her like a disposable sex toy", even when absolutely no sex took place, and consent (you know, THE defining aspect of whether or not something is rape or not) is arguably unknown in the situation.

By definition, she was incapable of consenting. It's not unknown. She didn't consent, period. The fact that anyone is even arguing over this is indicative that the rape-culture claims have at least some validity.

And really, no sex took place? I don't know if you have a significant other or not, but if you do, go penetrate another person with any object and then ask your SO if any sex took place.

If you eliminate consent and SEX as part of the charge, you are now starting to open up a wide range of crimes that could range from the innocuous to the bizarre.

As indicated above, I think your definition of sex is too narrow.

Regardless, the point was that whether he raped her, per the letter of the law, is pretty unimportant as far as the real topic of concern goes. If I were to strangle or bludgeon someone to death, and got off with 6 months in prison, I don't think arguing over which one counts as which type of murder should really be a main part of the conversation.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

This is all true if you want to trivialize or change the definition of rape.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm don't see how there's anything gained from distinguishing between nonconsensual penetration with fingers versus a penis versus an object.

Well, lets look at what you stated: " he treated her like a disposable sex toy", even when absolutely no sex took place, and consent (you know, THE defining aspect of whether or not something is rape or not) is arguably unknown in the situation.

By definition, she was incapable of consenting. It's not unknown. She didn't consent, period. The fact that anyone is even arguing over this is indicative that the rape-culture claims have at least some validity.

She herself can't honestly tell you whether she said yes or no in any of this. He is testifying to the fact she was amenable, drunk, but amenable. He also was amenable. Drunk, but amenable. Assuming she did say yes before she went unconscious, is he still in the wrong?

And really, no sex took place? I don't know if you have a significant other or not, but if you do, go penetrate another person with any object and then ask your SO if any sex took place.

Yeah, really, no sex took place. I can understand why you would be intent to argue emotional aspects rather than evidentiary ones, but I decline in altering the definitions of words to suit a bias.

If you eliminate consent and SEX as part of the charge, you are now starting to open up a wide range of crimes that could range from the innocuous to the bizarre.

As indicated above, I think your definition of sex is too narrow.

I think your definition favors sexism. That being if a man is drugged, tied down after abduction, force fed viagra, then had sex with, by your definition (penetration), its not rape, in as much as he was never penetrated. No thank you.

Regardless, the point was that whether he raped her, per the letter of the law, is pretty unimportant as far as the real topic of concern goes.

So you are stating the letter of the law is not important in a matter of upholding the law.

Interesting.

If I were to strangle or bludgeon someone to death, and got off with 6 months in prison, I don't think arguing over which one counts as which type of murder should really be a main part of the conversation.

Because murder is murder, and pretty clearly defined, just like rape. Even the degrees of murder are pretty easily understood.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

This is all true if you want to trivialize or change the definition of rape.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm don't see how there's anything gained from distinguishing between nonconsensual penetration with fingers versus a penis versus an object.

Well, lets look at what you stated: " he treated her like a disposable sex toy", even when absolutely no sex took place, and consent (you know, THE defining aspect of whether or not something is rape or not) is arguably unknown in the situation.

By definition, she was incapable of consenting. It's not unknown. She didn't consent, period. The fact that anyone is even arguing over this is indicative that the rape-culture claims have at least some validity.

She herself can't honestly tell you whether she said yes or no in any of this. He is testifying to the fact she was amenable, drunk, but amenable. He also was amenable. Drunk, but amenable. Assuming she did say yes before she went unconscious, is he still in the wrong?

Yes.

And really, no sex took place? I don't know if you have a significant other or not, but if you do, go penetrate another person with any object and then ask your SO if any sex took place.

Yeah, really, no sex took place. I can understand why you would be intent to argue emotional aspects rather than evidentiary ones, but I decline in altering the definitions of words to suit a bias.

I was trying to offer another way of seeing something, not appealing to emotion. Anyway, I looked up the legal definition of rape, and it is sexual intercourse by force or without consent. And the definition of sexual intercourse is sexual penetration, usually of the vagina by a penis, but not exclusively that. So, in accordance with California's affirmative consent law, and the definitions of rape and sexual intercourse, he raped her.

If you eliminate consent and SEX as part of the charge, you are now starting to open up a wide range of crimes that could range from the innocuous to the bizarre.

As indicated above, I think your definition of sex is too narrow.

I think your definition favors sexism. That being if a man is drugged, tied down after abduction, force fed viagra, then had sex with, by your definition (penetration), its not rape, in as much as he was never penetrated. No thank you.

I'm not sure how you came up with that. Saying that something is included in the set of actions that qualify as sex does not mean that other actions are excluded.

Regardless, the point was that whether he raped her, per the letter of the law, is pretty unimportant as far as the real topic of concern goes.

So you are stating the letter of the law is not important in a matter of upholding the law.

Interesting.

If I were to strangle or bludgeon someone to death, and got off with 6 months in prison, I don't think arguing over which one counts as which type of murder should really be a main part of the conversation.

Because murder is murder, and pretty clearly defined, just like rape. Even the degrees of murder are pretty easily understood.

The law was upheld in that he was prosecuted. In determining whether or not he committed a crime, the letter of the law is very important. However, this is a matter of determining an appropriate sentence. When the punishment for one type of sexual assault is generally the same for another, as long as the person was convicted of one of them, I don't think it's important which one he was convicted of. In this case, the kid got far less than people usually get for either. So adding this semantic point to it seems like it can only detract from the larger argument.

Funny to me how a woman that is inebriated and has sex with someone cannot legally consent, but a man who is inebriated and has sex can legally consent to that action and has to bear the responsibility. Something tells me that we need more consistency here.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape. The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

This is all true if you want to trivialize or change the definition of rape.

Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm don't see how there's anything gained from distinguishing between nonconsensual penetration with fingers versus a penis versus an object.

Well, lets look at what you stated: " he treated her like a disposable sex toy", even when absolutely no sex took place, and consent (you know, THE defining aspect of whether or not something is rape or not) is arguably unknown in the situation.

By definition, she was incapable of consenting. It's not unknown. She didn't consent, period. The fact that anyone is even arguing over this is indicative that the rape-culture claims have at least some validity.

She herself can't honestly tell you whether she said yes or no in any of this. He is testifying to the fact she was amenable, drunk, but amenable. He also was amenable. Drunk, but amenable. Assuming she did say yes before she went unconscious, is he still in the wrong?

Yes.

Because....?

And really, no sex took place? I don't know if you have a significant other or not, but if you do, go penetrate another person with any object and then ask your SO if any sex took place.

Yeah, really, no sex took place. I can understand why you would be intent to argue emotional aspects rather than evidentiary ones, but I decline in altering the definitions of words to suit a bias.

I was trying to offer another way of seeing something, not appealing to emotion. Anyway, I looked up the legal definition of rape, and it is sexual intercourse by force or without consent. And the definition of sexual intercourse is sexual penetration, usually of the vagina by a penis, but not exclusively that. So, in accordance with California's affirmative consent law, and the definitions of rape and sexual intercourse, he raped her.

"by force or without consent", which, he states he had. So, in order to protect women from... themselves, apparently, a new set of laws needed to be devised. Now, before the knee jerk kicks in, why do I say "women to protect themselves"? Because the law was crafted to protect one group of people: drunk females. Before "affirmative consent" laws came into play, who other than inebriated females complained about this? That is to say, honestly, how many women were being raped while they slept someplace out in public? I don't know about you, but I never read a paper or heard on the news about some female taking a nap on the beach and some one attempting to rape her. I did however hear a LOT about women going to parties, ingesting FAR to much alcohol, and then suffering the consequences of what happens when you add a known inhibition blocker into the mix. It also turned intoxicated women (not men, strangely) into some one unable to consent to sex. A man, simply, is not afforded the same protections given the same circumstances, as this case clearly indicates.

And lastly, no, California law separates sexual organs as a different offence.

If you eliminate consent and SEX as part of the charge, you are now starting to open up a wide range of crimes that could range from the innocuous to the bizarre.

As indicated above, I think your definition of sex is too narrow.

I think your definition favors sexism. That being if a man is drugged, tied down after abduction, force fed viagra, then had sex with, by your definition (penetration), its not rape, in as much as he was never penetrated. No thank you.

I'm not sure how you came up with that.

Reading your posts, mostly.

Saying that something is included in the set of actions that qualify as sex does not mean that other actions are excluded.

How ever you, above, hinged rape on the victim being penetrated.

Regardless, the point was that whether he raped her, per the letter of the law, is pretty unimportant as far as the real topic of concern goes.

So you are stating the letter of the law is not important in a matter of upholding the law.

Interesting.

If I were to strangle or bludgeon someone to death, and got off with 6 months in prison, I don't think arguing over which one counts as which type of murder should really be a main part of the conversation.

Because murder is murder, and pretty clearly defined, just like rape. Even the degrees of murder are pretty easily understood.

The law was upheld in that he was prosecuted. In determining whether or not he committed a crime, the letter of the law is very important. However, this is a matter of determining an appropriate sentence.

Which is why he was not charged with crimes that required consent. Funny, that. The laws he was found guilty of all hinged around her being drunk, as her consent was found in testimony, and she herself couldn't verify with holding consent during the act.

This means even if she said yes, and remembered it, HE IS STILL GUILTY. What effing sense does that make?

When the punishment for one type of sexual assault is generally the same for another, as long as the person was convicted of one of them, I don't think it's important which one he was convicted of. In this case, the kid got far less than people usually get for either. So adding this semantic point to it seems like it can only detract from the larger argument.

Because what made it "sticky" was her consent was testified to. She impeached herself. As such, the judge had to review that with such testimony, this is no longer can be treated as a violent crime.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape.

You're free to your opinion. The law, and every state legislature does not share your view.

The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

"by force or without consent", which, he states he had. So, in order to protect women from... themselves, apparently, a new set of laws needed to be devised. Now, before the knee jerk kicks in, why do I say "women to protect themselves"? Because the law was crafted to protect one group of people: drunk females. Before "affirmative consent" laws came into play, who other than inebriated females complained about this? That is to say, honestly, how many women were being raped while they slept someplace out in public? I don't know about you, but I never read a paper or heard on the news about some female taking a nap on the beach and some one attempting to rape her. I did however hear a LOT about women going to parties, ingesting FAR to much alcohol, and then suffering the consequences of what happens when you add a known inhibition blocker into the mix. It also turned intoxicated women (not men, strangely) into some one unable to consent to sex. A man, simply, is not afforded the same protections given the same circumstances, as this case clearly indicates.

It's to protect everyone, but the reality is that rapists are far more likely to be men, and men are far less likely to report being raped. There isn't anything in the law that excludes men.

And lastly, no, California law separates sexual organs as a different offence.

Separate offenses with no practical distinction. Rape versus rape (by another name) with something other than a penis. The law says sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is not exclusive to genital-genital penetration.

Reading your posts, mostly.

Misreading them.

How ever you, above, hinged rape on the victim being penetrated.

As sufficient, not required. Saying penetration makes it rape is not at all the same as saying it isn't rape if there's no penetration.

Which is why he was not charged with crimes that required consent. Funny, that. The laws he was found guilty of all hinged around her being drunk, as her consent was found in testimony, and she herself couldn't verify with holding consent during the act.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape.

You're free to your opinion. The law, and every state legislature does not share your view.

The law says sexual intercourse without consent. And at least one state, Connecticut, agrees with me.

The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.

*sigh*Question to all of you: What would you do to fix the justice system so clearly outrageous (far too lenient here) judgments like this don't happen?

This is an interesting article, and it's interesting to me how people are approaching this issue.

It should be clear here that this kid did not rape the girl. He only sexually assaulted her which, to be clear, is a heinous thing to do, but it's not rape. Rape is more than what he did. Memes are circulating now about how he's a rapist, but he's not a rapist. He's a sexual assailant.

What he did here is essentially make sexual contact with a girl's genitals while she was unconscious, before a bunch of Swedish foreign exchange students intervened.

While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I don't think splitting hairs on this part of it is productive. Whether with fingers, a penis, or some other object, I think the penetration makes it rape.

You're free to your opinion. The law, and every state legislature does not share your view.

The law says sexual intercourse without consent. And at least one state, Connecticut, agrees with me.

The state she wound up in contributes to the connotations of rape. Essentially, he treated her like a disposable sex toy. I don't think trying to make a distinction between rape and some other type of sexual assault benefits your argument.